Replies to post #310812 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[NukeJohn]

Time Frame for the CAFC Ruling.

At one point in time I thought this ruling would be precedential, but after studying the case and the applicable statutes, I think the odds are that it will be non-precedential. Non-Precedential rulings come out much quicker than precedential rulings (which are typically longer in length and take longer in time for an opinion to be reached).

If the opinion is a non-precedential opinion, we are well within the window for it to come out any day. Most of those opinions (if they are unanimous as I believe the IDCC case will be), come out in a 3 week to 7 week window. But even if this case is a precedential opinion....since Chief Judge Rader has taken over at the CAFC, these more lengthy precedential opinions are coming out much faster.

Before Rader took over from Michel in June of last year, I think it was extremely rare for precedential rulings to come out in less than 2 months. I think that is why some people think this will take longer. For example, here is a list of just a few precedential opinions since last August that have come out in less than 2 months.

2009-7110 - 59 days
2009-5122 - 60 days
2010-3030 - 54 days
2009-1538 - 60 days
2010-7007 - 61 days
2010-1028 - 49 days
2009-1428 - 28 days
2010-1059 - 36 days
2009-3292 - 46 days
2010-1138 - 34 days

One more thing...if the CAFC issues a non-precedential opinion, either of the parties can request (within 60 days) that it be made a precedential opinion (Rule 32.1 (e)). So, if the CAFC issues a non-precedential opinion, and Nokia still refuses to settle, then IDCC can go back and request the CAFC ruling be made precedential, which would allow the ruling to have precedential effect in other cases.

But as you can see from the above list, we have entered a window of time where the ruling could come at any time, whether it is precedential or non-precedential.

Nokia will take another heavy hit in the stock market if the CAFC issues a ruling that overturns the ITC's claims construction. The hit will be even harder if the CAFC goes the next step and says "infringement has been determined", as they did in the Crocs case. I think they will take that step.

JMHO,

NJ